Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for an excellent and informative speech and for taking the initiative to bring this matter to the House of Commons. I also extend my thanks to members present who permitted me to speak in this order.
The motion as set out calls upon the government and all members of parliament to embark on what would be a very historic and important journey. That is to examine our federal electoral system making use of a report on proportional representation that would come about as a result of participation of an all party committee.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you personally and many others followed with great interest the proceedings of the Progressive Conservative Party's policy conference which took place last weekend in Quebec city. I note the acknowledgement by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. He would know that over 1,200 delegates participated in that exercise. They debated and voted on a number of policy issues, including this issue.
The issue of proportional representation, although judgment was reserved as to how we would proceed in the future, was a topic of great interest and participation by delegates. It signals the fact that this is a very important issue on the public's mind. It is something on which we should not close the options when it comes to this discussion.
The wording of the current motion troubles me somewhat in the sense that it calls upon the government to embark on a referendum process. Do not get me wrong. The Progressive Conservative Party has never shied away from national referendums and can lay claim to having been one of the national governments that ever openly participated in national referendums in a tangible way. It is a party that has done this and it continues to look at this type of participation in our democratic process.
The difficulty with the motion as framed is that it would be virtually impossible to carry it out within the timeframe we have to work in. The next general election is very likely less than one year away. It would be virtually impossible and highly dubious that the machinery which would be necessary to put it in place could be implemented. I do not say that with any false premise. I believe that this exercise is extremely fruitful and one which again I congratulate the member for having the impetus to bring forward.
In his speech the member mentioned the fact that it has led to certain policies. He mentioned the GST and free trade. The government when in opposition chastised and said the sky would fall if the country were to embark on these. We know it has embraced, expanded and called these same Conservative policies its own. This type of duplicitous reaction and approach is what has added greatly to much of the cynicism that exists not only about our electoral system but about politics in general.
What we are looking for and what is underlying this type of debate is the issue of relevancy in people's lives and the legitimacy of government in the undertakings which Canadians participate in on a daily basis. In a sense it is a very interesting scenario in that I know the hon. member was also present in the fall last year when we had a conference in which you, Mr. Speaker, were very much a participant and a chair with respect to citizen empowerment. And I openly thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that the exercise we are partaking in today is something that furthers the debate. It brings about hope for the achievement of some relevance and an achievement of a system that would be far more representative of Canadians' interest, their participation and their ability to hold government and elected members accountable.
At that conference much was discussed in a very positive light about a system of proportional representation. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, we discussed other countries that have embarked on such systems. There is much to be learned from examining those other countries.
One has to have a very healthy degree of caution as well when we go into this debate. There is no panacea. There is no one system or one magic bullet when it comes to changing a system which will ensure that it actually will improve what we have in the country today. The hon. member quite fairly indicated in his remarks that there is no one answer. However, the exercise of looking for that answer is what we should all be doing today.
With that reservation I say that we must proceed with caution. When we are talking about fundamental changes to our democratic process this must be ever present in our minds.
With that reservation it is fair to say that there are a broad number of academics and members of parliament present, who I expect we will hear from, who are very interested in this idea of empowerment and, by extension, citizens being empowered in a system of second round run-off elections.
It is interesting to see the electoral process being mirrored in some leadership races. That is something as well that can stand as a benchmark and stand as a precedent as we proceed in this exercise.
This run-off type of system would result in every member of the House being mandated to achieve at least a 50% threshold in the electoral district for which they were running.
The motion before the House calls for a statement of the opinion of the House as to actions that the government should take. We all know that the government could and likely will ignore this resolution. However, governments generally, in fairness, are very reluctant to embark or change a system that propels them into office and gives them a docile backbench. That is very much implicit in this debate as well, because it is not only members of the opposition but very much members of the government who are forced to clam up and bow down to a very centralized and very powerful executive branch of government.
It is even more unlikely, I suggest, that the current Prime Minister, in the dying days of his administration, would launch into such a vigorous reform of the electoral system. This Prime Minister is too comfortable and complacent with a system that has propelled him to office, and he knows that he has never been an innovator or very willing to embark upon new ideas. That is demonstrated, as I indicated earlier, by the policy approach which this government has taken.
The Prime Minister is at the head of a very powerful executive dictatorship. I do not use that word lightly, but that is the acknowledgement and that is very much the undertone of many academics who have been looking at this exact issue. There are no effective checks or balances in the current system. As Professor Donald Savoie described in his very important book Governing from the Centre , the Prime Minister is no longer first among equals, he is an all powerful individual. Even ministers in this government who wield a great deal of power are toiling in the shadow of the Prime Minister's senior staff. There is ample evidence of this outlined in Professor Savoie's work. The real power brokers are Eddie and Jean, not Paul and Allan.
Regionalism, which was touched upon by the hon. member, has also been exacerbated by our current system. I would suggest that this is very much a motivating and propelling force for us to look at the system we are currently saddled with.
This is not to belittle anyone personally; it is to set out a problem that exists and that very much weakens parliament in its ability to be effective and accountable. Accountability is something that we have to be conscious of.
One of the remedies that is put forward by many as leading to a stronger parliament, and one that I must acknowledge, is that if we abandon the parliamentary form of governance we must be prepared very quickly to move into a new and effective replacement. The proponents of proportional representation argue that members of parliament with the support of 50% plus one have the ability to enhance the mandate from their community and this would very much further embolden and empower the member who was elected. I agree with that sentiment.
Would that human condition be that simple. We know that is not the case, for party machinery will always play a role in our electoral process. Party leaders will always wield tools. We have seen instances in the very recent past where the government, without having a nomination process, simply appointed candidates. The current government has embarked on that process.
Any examination of this subject needs to pay particular attention and detail to the proponents of a new electoral law.
There is an important example of small changes to the system having important effects on the balance of power. When public financing became very much a part of the electoral system, a provision was inserted to require the leader of a party to sign the electoral papers of every candidate. The supposed purpose was to ensure, dare I say the word, clarity in who was to be the official party candidate, since public money would flow to that person's and that party's electoral machinery. This was seemingly an insignificant detail at the time, but the devil is in the detail and that is why I say we have to go forward with caution.
That procedure has led to a process which allows the government, or any party for that matter, to simply appoint candidates as opposed to having an electoral run-off system through a nomination.
This sort of backroom bludgeoning, I suggest, will continue to occur with proportional representation unless we have some defining guidelines. Change is fine. However, it should not be taken lightly and not embarked upon simply for the sake of change.
I am encouraged by the hon. member's initiative. I support him in what he is trying to do. We have reached a threshold of dissatisfaction and we must go forward from here.
